Thread

1. wewewedxfgdf · 1791183268 · focus · HN ↗

   I vaguely recall reading that biofuels have been debunked as being insanely inefficient as a fuel source and consume land that would be better used to grow food.

   1. loeg · 1791183879 · focus · HN ↗

      Certainly corn ethanol is mostly a bad idea (other than for anti-knock).
   2. [deleted] · 1791184123 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

   3. veqq · 1791184734 · focus · HN ↗

      Biofuels are basically green washing. While sugar-based is better than corn-based, Brazilian biofuel is mostly just turning EU subsidies into profit, by converting petrol into sugar-based biofuel to burn instead of burning the petrol directly. Very unfortunate.
   4. Lutger · 1791185203 · focus · HN ↗

      The main focus of the article is not biofuels, but plant based plastics. We can replace most of the need for fuel with EV (or hydrogen fuels), but plastic is a harder problem. Micro and nanoplastics are also a problem that urgently needs to be addressed.

      1. jillesvangurp · 1791189439 · focus · HN ↗

         This article tosses together bio fuels and plastics. By conflating the two, they seem to try to create some urgency for subsidizing the creation of both. And of course bio fuels are heavily subsidized already.

         This article deliberately confuses things by conflating it with the discussion around bio fuels. Which, as you point out is largely redundant given that we now have decent EVs for literally anything with wheels commercially available. Anything from the tiniest scooters to the largest vehicles operated in the mining industry. And everything in between.

         The fallacy with this debate is the focus on disproportionately small parts of the challenge of de-carbonization. If we manage to electrify most road and rail transport, heating (industrial and domestic), some shipping and aviation, etc. that would make an enormous dent in fossil fuel usage. After that we might focus on harder things like plastics. I'm not against people focusing on that now. More power to these people. But put it in perspective: it's relatively small part of the problem. And we have alternatives.

         This fallacy is a recurring theme in fossil fuel lobbying materials. By spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, they hope to slow down the accelerating implosion of their primary revenue maker: fuel sales. So, they talk up hydrogen and bio fuels. Sponsor studies on the impact of windmills on wild life. Etc. I can't help but look at this article and wonder who payed for it.

      2. soltanov · 1791193028 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

   5. DonaldRitzke · 1791186311 · focus · HN ↗

      There is nothing to debunk. Countries that heavily rely on biofuels did it to fight trade pressures. Brazil is the posterboy.

      We KNOW it is inefficient. It's why anywhere someone who has the capital and has a brain, is swapping out cornfields for solar panels to make more money. Problem is the first setup of a corn field when you don't have that capital is cheaper due to subsidies.

      America does those subsidies too. You guys voted for it, of course!

   6. nbadg · 1791189031 · focus · HN ↗

      40% of US corn goes to biofuel (ethanol), contributing less than 4% of US fuel supply. With soybean oil it's even worse, 40% contributes 1%. Converting all farmland currently used for biofuel production globally to solar would produce 23x as much energy, enough to electrify the entire global (automotive) vehicle fleet.

      I'm not familiar with how much feedstock is required to produce bioplastics, but it looks like plastics production globally is, I believe, around 500 million (metric) tons -- ie 500 billion kilograms, vs roughly 120 billion liters of biofuel. Napkin math at 1 kg/L (the density of ethanol is about 0.8 kg/l, so that's close), and that's about 4x more required, assuming no wastage by mass.

      In other words, you're right to be skeptical; I don't think the math works.

      Methanol and methane produced via DAC has been proposed as an alternative, but will only be feasible economically with extremely low energy costs. Possible with high solar penetration (see Australia), but far from a settled political question.

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wri.org&#x2F;insights&#x2F;increased-biofuel-production-impacts-climate-change-farmers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wri.org&#x2F;insights&#x2F;increased-biofuel-production-im...

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehicles" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehic...

      1. soltanov · 1791192954 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

      2. fransje26 · 1791194389 · focus · HN ↗

         Then it&#x27;s a way to subsidize agriculture?
      3. aitchnyu · 1791194553 · focus · HN ↗

         If your heart too loves the sight of vast fields, (my clanker computed) converting all of it to solar meets 4–5× total U.S. electricity generation, agrivoltaics look nicer and can generate 3× U.S. electricity.

         <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;agrivoltaics.rutgers.edu&#x2F;image-gallery-of-agrivoltaic-installations&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;agrivoltaics.rutgers.edu&#x2F;image-gallery-of-agrivoltai...

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.